Talk:Raid Timeline
good work Good work so far, keep it up! Its Ahket not Akhet User:Xinturaia :Thanks for the heads up.--Kodia 15:55, 5 December 2006 (CET) Layout IMHO this should be set up differently... "Instances" & "Contested" And then in T7 move ToS to "Contested" as the entire zone is contested... HOWEVER put Harla's room in "Instances" since it is NOT contested any more =) I would rearrange it myself but its protected =) --Lordebon 23:23, 3 November 2006 (CET) :I'll see about updating it. It was originally protected because of repeated defacement.--Kodia 15:55, 5 December 2006 (CET) :Is the T7 more like what you were thinking? let me know.--Kodia 20:49, 5 December 2006 (CET) EoF Raid Content These are here but should be listed here in the raid info too. Need to add... Instances: T7 The Clockwork Menace Factory, Freethinker Hideout, Mistmoore's Inner Sanctum, The Emerald Halls Contested: T6/7? Equestrielle the Corrupted and T7 The Pumpkin Headed Horseman -- Kethra (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2006 (CET) :Thanks. I'll see about getting these added shortly.--Kodia 15:55, 5 December 2006 (CET) :Done. Latest info I could find added. We're likely to see more as the raiding guilds hit some of the new instances.--Kodia 20:39, 5 December 2006 (CET) Reorganization I think this page is getting a bit unwieldy in its present form and should likely have a better organization all around. Suggestions can be put here, of course. But I'm keeping the page protected just in case. I'll be handling the reorganization to preserve our data integrity through the transition and then we can re-evaluate whether or not to take off the protection.--Kodia 20:50, 5 December 2006 (CET) 2x raids, guild raids It would be nice to see 2x, 3x, and guild raids mentioned here too. Will this section be unlocked soon, or is there a planned edit in the near future? :These are high-risk areas for the website due to past defacement, but I'd be happy to move the protection to registered users only if you had plans for making edits. --Kodia 20:42, 9 March 2007 (CET) Avatars There's more avatars, I've seen Avatar of war in zek (outside deathfist) and the Avatar of Hate in nek, then there's the Avatar of Below in BBM. :Very cool! It would be nice if you see them again to grab a screenshot, /loc info, level, etc, and make the pages here! :) --Florence Sopher of Lucan D'Lere (talk/ /templates) 05:09, 31 March 2007 (CEST) Tier 8 wording? In the Tier 8 box, I'm not so sure that the sub-tier wording works best. It confuses the "tier" concept throughout the rest of the game. Is there a better way to delineate those demarcations?--Kodia 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC) I agree, but that's how those zones are being referred to in the general community (see http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Rise_of_Kunark). Maybe dashes? T8-1, T8-2? Any other suggestions? --Yowler 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) :Yep, unfortunately SOE called them tiers in beta. My personal way of differentiation is to use lowercase t -- ie "t2 raid" (vs "T2 zone") and since there is very little to raid T1-T4 it hasn't been too big of an issue --Lordebon 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Shard of Hate Where should SoH stand in T8? outside the rest of the raid tier progression? --Jaudark 18:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) :Shard of Hate would be like tier 1 to tier 4, there are some named that are as difficult as tier 1 mobs some are harder and Byzola is hard like Trakanon in there so i added it like the title of the other tiers are. -- Chillispike 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Splitpaw Raids I'm quite sure that the Splitpaw Raids do not scale, and have never scaled. They are tuned for level 50 characters, and the mobs are always the same level. So I have moved the Splitpaw raids over to the T5 column, and while I was at it, I added the seldom-used T'Haen the Lost raid from Bloodlines Chronicles (which is also a level 50 raid). The guild raids DO scale, although last I heard the scaling algorithm was broken. So they still belong in a separate column. --- Sassinak 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Raid FAQ (from SOE) *Raid FAQ -- Chillispike 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC) :Note the Soe Article link to this article. -- Chillispike 10:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Declassed Raid mobs Anguis and the Windstalker rumbler are no longer Epic mobs. Should they be removed, or put into a new section? --Noise 666 08:50, January 14, 2010 (UTC) :If they're no longer x2 mobs, then yes we'll probably remove them from the timeline and alter their individual pages. It's likely that with so many formerly-epic mobs being downgraded to Heroic in the recent game updates... that the community simply missed a few. =P -- Mysterious drake 09:45, January 14, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with the remove from the list, the list should only show the current epic mobs. -- 11:20, January 14, 2010 (UTC) :::updated the list a bit to my current knowledge --Vraeth 12:02, January 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::The actual mobs need a verify i guess? ;) -- 17:57, January 14, 2010 (UTC) :Both Anguis and the Rumbler are x2, just checked them both on Nektulos. Perhaps they have been declassed only on PvP servers? Janze-Nek 01:23, January 15, 2010 (UTC) :Ladon seems to be a heroic though, hmmm, tell ya what, I will go check, can some one give me a list of declassed mobs?--Noise 666 12:35, January 15, 2010 (UTC) Acording to LU53 the following mobs got changed: *Allidax the Ancient *Alrendi Thoughtsong *Broog the Banished *Commander Nagrat *Cragshell *Cyenadros, Lord of the Sanctum *Doomsquall *Equestrielle *Grimfeather *Haraghur the Deathless *Haywire Opticron (lowered to one-up and added loot) *Lavin Dusk *Mangler *Meathooks *Scytheclaw *Spiregazer *Ssilth Rageclaw *The Unseelie JumJum Thief *Vox -- 00:36, January 17, 2010 (UTC) SF Raids SF Raids would be Tier 10 or not? -- 21:15, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :How does that math work? My brain says tier 9.--Kodia 23:10, April 6, 2010 (UTC) *Tier 1 = 1-9 *Tier 2 = 10-19 *Tier 3 = 20-29 *Tier 4 = 30-39 *Tier 5 = 40-49 *Tier 6 = 50-59 *Tier 7 = 60-69 *Tier 8 = 70-79 *Tier 9 = 80-89 *Tier 10 = 90-99 -- 10:45, April 7, 2010 (UTC) ::No. The template may call the mobs "T10" because of that math logic, but the zones are Tier 9, because that's when they were added and were intended to be done. --lordebon 13:15, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :::90+ mob T10 easy that is, you can't clear the zone as T9 .. which is 80-89. The intended Level to clear such zones is 90 which is T10. :::At Talk:Tiers we aggreed on the math of the Tiers, same rule for every article i would say. :::-- 14:34, April 7, 2010 (UTC) There *isn't* a tier 10 at present, which is why level 90 anything makes it difficult to categorize at the wiki. That's the problem we're running into here. We're trying to cram things into too much logic. At present, they're t9, even though they're level 90. As soon as we go higher, they'll be t10. What happens when we get level 100 things, which is supposed to be as high as things go? Are they t11 or are they t10 at the top, end-game? We should decide that now.--Kodia 22:31, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :What if we don't make the List by tier but by Level? :SF Raids are Level 90, ROK and TSO Raids are Level 80 for example. :-- 08:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC) ::there are already lvl100 items, npcs in the game. just as an example, in tso, when 80 was max level, mobs that were 80+ still had t8 bodydrops. now, after a maxlevel increase they have t9 body drops --Vraeth 09:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Right, but my point is that there may not be a T11. What happens to those when the cap is reached?--Kodia 10:47, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Personally I think raid mobs / raid zones should be classified by the tier they were released in. That's how they're always referred to in game, that's what makes sense. Sure the template for mobs may call them a "T10" mob because of its level, but the raid zone is a T9 raid. The higher level is part of what makes the intended difficulty of the raid. --lordebon 16:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC) :What if we list them by Expansion/Adventure Pack then? :Like :#SF Raids (Lvl90 Cap) :#TSO Raids (Lvl80 Cap) :#ROK Raids (Lvl80 Cap) :#EoF Raids (Lvl70 Cap) :#KoS Raids (Lvl70 Cap) :#DoF Raids (Lvl60 Cap) :#Original release (Lvl50 Cap) :or we use a differnt Tier math for this article: T1 = 1-10, T2 11-20, ... :That would be ok too i think if we add the level next to the Tiers in the table :-- 17:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, making tiers 1-10, 11-20 etc. wouldn't really change anything. A L95 mob would still show up as "T10". What I would do is list them by numerical Tier of the expansion. So SF is a T9 expansion, so all its raids fall under T9, even though the mobs are levels that mathematically fall into T10 on the monster/named template. --lordebon 23:05, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Realistically speaking, what do the tiers buy us if we specify them? If it's merely our categorization, then I'm not so sure that's worth it. What if we went onto the boards and posted this question with a link here? Life would be so much easier if SoE was consistent, eh?--Kodia 23:17, April 8, 2010 (UTC) :The numerical "tier" doesn't really do much for us, it's just a commonly used descriptor. However, I don't think it's even a matter of consistency. It's more along the lines of us applying a rigid numerical rule (1-9 = 1, 10-19 = 2, etc.) to a situation where it doesn't really hold. Mob level has been used as a difficulty modifier for as long as I can remember. For example, the highest-end of raid mobs are normally X+8, where X is the cap. The highest raid mobs in RoK / base TSO were 88, and in SF they're 98. (Of course, MMB after TSO came out added another level by making mobs in the low 90s but then gave an earring that boosted player level to 83). The variable meaning of level is one reason I've never really cared for the super-generic categories like Category:Tier 9 Monsters. --lordebon 23:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC) ::And that's exactly where I was headed with this question. I've never really cared for the super-generic categories either because they held little meaning to me, even when I was raiding heavily. While I'm not into making HUGE changes, sometimes they have to be made to make the wiki better. Considering the tier or level or cap designations is going to have a much wider effect on the wiki than just the raid timeline because of its fundamental nature. With the possible exception of zones (and even that's a little fuzzy now) I can't see what the concept of tiers buys us, even knowing how commonly its referred to by players. Any change or conceptual approach we decide now has to be brought forward through most of the wiki, likely in stages, instead of just here, and adequately addressed on a Tiers page describing why we approach it the way we do.--Kodia 10:27, April 9, 2010 (UTC) Missing DoV content DoV Citadel of V'uul x2 is missing :Any reason why this page hasn't been updated for AoM raids? : 00:27, May 24, 2015 (UTC)Nadaj ::Let me see if i can fix that soon :) -- 13:47, May 24, 2015 (UTC) :::i couldn't remeber all names but i started to those i knew -- 15:26, May 24, 2015 (UTC) Recategorize by Expansion/Release There's been significant discussion regarding the definition of "tier", and things were only made worse with the Skyshrine (92) and Chains of Eternity (95) level increases. Altar of Malice (100) sort of put things back on track, and then Planes of Prophecy (110) went back to the 10-level increase. Should we not just classify raids by when they were released? It's more informative to say what player level the raids were designed for than the say what level the bosses are. Benj (talk) 21:21, December 1, 2017 (UTC)